Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #43238 > unrolled thread

pointers and pointing

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  pointers and pointing "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-21 13:57 -0400
    Re: pointers and pointing Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2014-04-21 11:58 -0700
      Re: pointers and pointing "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-21 15:09 -0400
        Re: pointers and pointing buja <buja66@gmail.com> - 2014-04-21 12:44 -0700
      Re: pointers and pointing gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-21 20:28 +0000
        Re: pointers and pointing "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-04-21 15:43 -0500
          Re: pointers and pointing Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-22 10:28 -0400
        Re: pointers and pointing ralph <nt_consulting@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-21 16:25 -0500
        Re: pointers and pointing Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2014-04-21 15:14 -0700
          Re: pointers and pointing James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-21 18:41 -0400
            Re: pointers and pointing gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-04-21 22:48 +0000
        Re: pointers and pointing jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2014-04-22 00:22 +0200
      Re: pointers and pointing "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-21 18:25 -0400
        Re: pointers and pointing Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2014-04-21 20:56 -0700
          Re: pointers and pointing glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-22 05:51 +0000
            Re: pointers and pointing James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-22 07:38 -0400
          Re: pointers and pointing David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-04-22 09:16 +0200
          Re: pointers and pointing "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-22 09:37 -0400
            Re: pointers and pointing Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 15:00 +0100
            Re: pointers and pointing Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-22 10:36 -0400
              Re: pointers and pointing "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-22 14:09 -0400
                Re: pointers and pointing Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-04-22 22:40 +0100
                Re: pointers and pointing Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 00:05 +0100
                Re: pointers and pointing Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2014-04-22 16:08 -0700
                  Re: pointers and pointing "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 22:19 -0400
              Re: pointers and pointing "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-22 14:22 -0400
              Re: pointers and pointing "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2014-04-22 14:24 -0400
                Re: pointers and pointing buja <buja66@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 13:12 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#43238 — pointers and pointing

    What confuses me the most right now in looking at real world code out 
there is this about pointers. When I see a paramter that obvious wants a 
pointer, or that's what I believe anyway I don't know how to respond. For 
example.

int func(void *par);

Ok I have seen things passed to this type in 3 differnt ways.

int *p;

func(p);

Or

func(*p);

Or

func(&p);

This is what's confusing me now. And I'm getting a lot of error because of 
it.

Bill

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#43246

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:57:35 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
<nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:

>    What confuses me the most right now in looking at real world code out 
>there is this about pointers. When I see a paramter that obvious wants a 
>pointer, or that's what I believe anyway I don't know how to respond. For 
>example.
>
>int func(void *par);
>
>Ok I have seen things passed to this type in 3 differnt ways.
>
>int *p;
>
>func(p);
>
>Or
>
>func(*p);
>
>Or
>
>func(&p);
>
>This is what's confusing me now. And I'm getting a lot of error because of 
>it.

1/10

You are getting lazy Bill.  This is a recycle of your post from Feb.
10, 2010

-- 
Remove del for email

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43248

Barry Schwarz wrote:

> You are getting lazy Bill.  This is a recycle of your post from Feb.
> 10, 2010

    Give me a link

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43250

Op maandag 21 april 2014 21:09:44 UTC+2 schreef Bill Cunningham:
> Barry Schwarz wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > You are getting lazy Bill.  This is a recycle of your post from Feb.
> 
> > 10, 2010
> 
> 
> 
>     Give me a link

Not a link to you original message, but probably more useful:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Programming-Absolute-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/0789751984/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398109307&sr=1-3&keywords=c+programming

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43251

In article <rfqal9lmqc2a7i1kcs7s6laug96jd4p2to@4ax.com>,
Barry Schwarz  <schwarzb@dqel.com> wrote:
...
>You are getting lazy Bill.  This is a recycle of your post from Feb.
>10, 2010

Just out of curiosity, how did you figure that out?

I used to be able to search groups.google.com (and/or dejanews.com), but
that seems to be no longer working.

Anyway, as I've said before, I'm pretty sure "Bill Cunningham" is a sock
puppet of one of the regs - whose job it is to create activity in this
group.

-- 
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong.  It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43253

"Kenny McCormack" wrote:

> Anyway, as I've said before, I'm pretty sure "Bill Cunningham" is a sock
> puppet of one of the regs - whose job it is to create activity in this
> group.

So "pretty sure" means the same thing as "obvious' in your earlier post?

To me, "obvious" often means the same as "I have no idea". 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43290

On 4/21/2014 4:43 PM, Osmium wrote:
[...]
> To me, "obvious" often means the same as "I have no idea".

Well, it's obvious that you have no idea.  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43256

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:28:12 +0000 (UTC), gazelle@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <rfqal9lmqc2a7i1kcs7s6laug96jd4p2to@4ax.com>,
>Barry Schwarz  <schwarzb@dqel.com> wrote:
>...
>>You are getting lazy Bill.  This is a recycle of your post from Feb.
>>10, 2010
>
>Just out of curiosity, how did you figure that out?
>
>I used to be able to search groups.google.com (and/or dejanews.com), but
>that seems to be no longer working.
>
>Anyway, as I've said before, I'm pretty sure "Bill Cunningham" is a sock
>puppet of one of the regs - whose job it is to create activity in this
>group.

You might apply Stylometry.

I was able to apply their methods in similar cases in another
newsgroup. Never came up with any proof "beyond all doubt", after all
I'm no forensics expert, but was able to obtain results "good enough"
for my own satisfaction.

What was interesting, was the changes that will occur once they feel
they are being tracked, and the fact such people never had only one
"sock puppet" , thus could be traced across a variety of newsgroups
and forums. That the latter came as a surprise is more an example of
my naivety when I started than any brillant deduction on my part. <g>

-ralph

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43257

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:28:12 +0000 (UTC), gazelle@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <rfqal9lmqc2a7i1kcs7s6laug96jd4p2to@4ax.com>,
>Barry Schwarz  <schwarzb@dqel.com> wrote:
>...
>>You are getting lazy Bill.  This is a recycle of your post from Feb.
>>10, 2010
>
>Just out of curiosity, how did you figure that out?
>
>I used to be able to search groups.google.com (and/or dejanews.com), but
>that seems to be no longer working.

From memory: www.google.com->more->even
more->groups->comp.lang.c->cunningham and then look for pointers.

-- 
Remove del for email

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43260

On 04/21/2014 06:14 PM, Barry Schwarz wrote:
...
> From memory: www.google.com->more->even
> more->groups->comp.lang.c->cunningham and then look for pointers.

More direct:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/comp.lang.c>
Click on the down-arrow on the right end of the search box.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43261

In article <53559E94.1050404@verizon.net>,
James Kuyper  <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 04/21/2014 06:14 PM, Barry Schwarz wrote:
>...
>> From memory: www.google.com->more->even
>> more->groups->comp.lang.c->cunningham and then look for pointers.
>
>More direct:
>
><https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/comp.lang.c>
>Click on the down-arrow on the right end of the search box.
>

Thanks.  Good to know.

-- 
I've been watching cat videos on YouTube.  More content and closer to
the truth than anything on Fox.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43258

Le 21/04/2014 22:28, Kenny McCormack a écrit :
> In article <rfqal9lmqc2a7i1kcs7s6laug96jd4p2to@4ax.com>,
> Barry Schwarz  <schwarzb@dqel.com> wrote:
> ...
>> You are getting lazy Bill.  This is a recycle of your post from Feb.
>> 10, 2010
>
> Just out of curiosity, how did you figure that out?
>
> I used to be able to search groups.google.com (and/or dejanews.com), but
> that seems to be no longer working.
>
> Anyway, as I've said before, I'm pretty sure "Bill Cunningham" is a sock
> puppet of one of the regs - whose job it is to create activity in this
> group.
>

Well, a certain "Bill Cunningham" posted this 5 days ago in 
comp.os.linux.development

<quote>
I am using ext4 on my linux. I'm not quite sure of the difference in it
and ext3 but anyway; the shred man page says with the ext3 filesystem shred
cannot be guaranteed to  work. What about scrub? What's the best way to
eliminate a file?

Bill
<end quote>

So, he is not trolling in this newsgroup only

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43259

I don't know Barry the thing about clc is that when you ask a question and 3 
people respond you will get 3 different answers. And people will lie to you 
too with some exceptions. I have had people fuck with me and lie about the 
way things work. But you must remember the only time you can come to clc for 
help is when you do not need it. When there is a *problem* and you have 
*solved* it; well then you can come to clc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43263

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:25:03 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
<nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:

>I don't know Barry the thing about clc is that when you ask a question and 3 
>people respond you will get 3 different answers. And people will lie to you 

When you ask a poorly worded question, you should expect a variety of
answers since people will make different assumptions about what you
really meant.

>too with some exceptions. I have had people fuck with me and lie about the 
>way things work. But you must remember the only time you can come to clc for 

I've seen people post incorrect responses, including myself, without
malice but the only person I've seen deliberately lie here is you.

>help is when you do not need it. When there is a *problem* and you have 
>*solved* it; well then you can come to clc.

And yet you keep coming back even though your problems are never
solved.

-- 
Remove del for email

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43264

Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:25:03 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
> <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
 
>>I don't know Barry the thing about clc is that when you ask a 
>> question and 3 people respond you will get 3 different answers. 
>> And people will lie to you 
 
> When you ask a poorly worded question, you should expect a variety of
> answers since people will make different assumptions about what you
> really meant.

I have known people to give unusual answers when people ask what
look like homework questions. Not usually wrong, but not always
completely useful.

But I don't remember any such misleading answers in this thread.

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43277

On 04/22/2014 01:51 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:25:03 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
>> <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>  
>>> I don't know Barry the thing about clc is that when you ask a 
>>> question and 3 people respond you will get 3 different answers. 
>>> And people will lie to you 
>  
>> When you ask a poorly worded question, you should expect a variety of
>> answers since people will make different assumptions about what you
>> really meant.
> 
> I have known people to give unusual answers when people ask what
> look like homework questions. Not usually wrong, but not always
> completely useful.

In my experience, completely useless and even seriously wrong code is
not an unusual response when someone asks us to do their homework for them.

This should not be confused with proper requests for help with homework,
including explanations of what the poster has already tried to do, and
explanations of what it is they don't understand about why it didn't
work. Such questions generate lots of sincerely helpful responses.

> But I don't remember any such misleading answers in this thread.

I can't remember anyone doing anything like that when answering Bill.
The most plausible explanation for Bill that assumes he is a troll, also
implies that he actually understands C far better than he pretends to,
which would render such responses pointless. Those responses are for
lazy clueless newbies, not trolls.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43265

On 22/04/14 05:56, Barry Schwarz wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:25:03 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
> <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> I don't know Barry the thing about clc is that when you ask a question and 3 
>> people respond you will get 3 different answers. And people will lie to you 
> 
> When you ask a poorly worded question, you should expect a variety of
> answers since people will make different assumptions about what you
> really meant.

When you ask a well-worded question, you can also often expect a variety
of answers - often there is no simple answer to a good question.  And
even if there is only one real answer, different people will express it
in different ways.

The variety of answers you get here is one of the strengths of this group.

> 
>> too with some exceptions. I have had people fuck with me and lie about the 
>> way things work. But you must remember the only time you can come to clc for 
> 
> I've seen people post incorrect responses, including myself, without
> malice but the only person I've seen deliberately lie here is you.

Agreed - lying or deliberately misleading is rare here (except for the
occasional obvious sarcastic reply).  There are a few people who are
either deliberately trolling, or determined to remain ignorant no matter
how many times the facts are explained - such posters are arguably
lying, but it is usually quite clear to everyone else where the
consensus opinion lies, so it is not a source of confusion.

And yes, some people make mistakes - even the most experienced C experts
get things wrong on occasion.  But typically mistakes get corrected
quickly in this group (that's another of its strengths).

> 
>> help is when you do not need it. When there is a *problem* and you have 
>> *solved* it; well then you can come to clc.
> 
> And yet you keep coming back even though your problems are never
> solved.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43284

Barry Schwarz wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:25:03 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
> <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I don't know Barry the thing about clc is that when you ask a
>> question and 3 people respond you will get 3 different answers. And
>> people will lie to you
>
> When you ask a poorly worded question, you should expect a variety of
> answers since people will make different assumptions about what you
> really meant.
>
>> too with some exceptions. I have had people fuck with me and lie
>> about the way things work. But you must remember the only time you
>> can come to clc for
>
> I've seen people post incorrect responses, including myself, without
> malice but the only person I've seen deliberately lie here is you.

    What did I deliberately lie about. This has been long in the past 
someone said to do something when I did they laughed. It didn't work out so 
good. That was long ago.

>> help is when you do not need it. When there is a *problem* and you
>> have *solved* it; well then you can come to clc.
>
> And yet you keep coming back even though your problems are never
> solved.

    Then I must not have grasped something. People have many times talked 
right over my head. I have had a variety of problems yes. Right now my 
concern is the difference in pointer notation. If that makes any sense. I've 
used it as far as I've do it by following  book but I've never understood 
fully the power of pointers and how to mechanically use them. Perl and 
python do no good in the *nix system interface.

Bill

int *p;

Ok when do I use p and when do I use *p. That right now I am working on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43286

"Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> writes:

> Barry Schwarz wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:25:03 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
>> <nospam@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know Barry the thing about clc is that when you ask a
>>> question and 3 people respond you will get 3 different answers. And
>>> people will lie to you
>>
>> When you ask a poorly worded question, you should expect a variety of
>> answers since people will make different assumptions about what you
>> really meant.
>>
>>> too with some exceptions. I have had people fuck with me and lie
>>> about the way things work. But you must remember the only time you
>>> can come to clc for
>>
>> I've seen people post incorrect responses, including myself, without
>> malice but the only person I've seen deliberately lie here is you.
>
>     What did I deliberately lie about. This has been long in the past 
> someone said to do something when I did they laughed. It didn't work out so 
> good. That was long ago.
>
>>> help is when you do not need it. When there is a *problem* and you
>>> have *solved* it; well then you can come to clc.
>>
>> And yet you keep coming back even though your problems are never
>> solved.
>
>     Then I must not have grasped something. People have many times talked 
> right over my head. I have had a variety of problems yes. Right now my 
> concern is the difference in pointer notation. If that makes any sense. I've 
> used it as far as I've do it by following  book but I've never understood 
> fully the power of pointers and how to mechanically use them. Perl and 
> python do no good in the *nix system interface.
>
> Bill
>
> int *p;
>
> Ok when do I use p and when do I use *p. That right now I am working on.
>

LOL. Surely not even the regular gasbags are going to bother replying to
this one!

1/10

-- 
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43291

On 4/22/2014 9:37 AM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
[...]
> int *p;
>
> Ok when do I use p and when do I use *p. That right now I am working on.

If "p" is a pointer, you use "p" when you want the pointer, and "*p" when 
you want what it points to.  (And you use "&p" when you want to point to the 
pointer.)

-- 
Kenneth Brody

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web